The Deficit will be Huge. It will be well over a Trillion Dollars. It Won't be $1.47 Trillion. Not that it matters; It's still Huge.

Interesting question: How do you "fix" it? Really?

Better question: How do you get it down to a manageable 2% of GDP?

Basically, you have to chop a $Trillion. Hmm. First, what happens if we can get back to 5% unemployment? 8 Million people back to work would pay about, oh, I don't know, let's say $400 Billion.

That puts us down to $600 Billion shortfall to overcome. Cancel out the Police Action in Iraq, and the whatever it is in Afghanistan - Probable Savings $200 Billion. We're down to $400 Billion.

Raise top rate to 39% - Approx increase in Revenues $500 Billion. Oops, we just overshot our mark by $100 Billion. Tweak Soc Sec by comb. of raising age of max benefits a couple of years, raising the max income SS Taxes are paid on, and indexing to inflation, rather than wages. Savings approx $100 Billion/Yr.

These actions recoup $1.2 Trillion Dollars, and would leave us with a Deficit of approx 1%, or a little less, of GDP - Basically, a "balanced budget."

Will all of this work out just like I'm saying? Of course not. Our economy is much too complex, and dynamic for such simple analysis. However, this goes to show that we're Not looking at the intractable, systemic problems that should make you go looking for a tall building. Our problems are manageable.

Some, however, are much more serious than this one. The budget deficit is, actually, the Easiest problem we are facing.

China uses Way more coal than we do, and yet we have larger coal reserves. This is really important to China, because they're still trying to get fully electrified, and industrialized.

WE have a different set of problems. We're, far, and away, the World's largest consumer of Petroleum Products, and we Import over Ten Million Barrels of them, Daily. With Oil flow "Peaking," and Oil "Demand" surging in the Non-OECD Nations leading to ever higher prices for imported oil, our Economy is going to be severely stressed for quite some time.

Basically, we are going to be very unlikely to get back to that 5% Unemployment level under these circumstances.

Yeah, we are, in typical American fashion, taking a more "local" approach. I Don't think that's a Bad thing. Electricity is Not an "impending" crisis for us, and we have the luxory of taking jibs, and jabs at electricity from renewables.

We Are, potentially, in a much more serious situation regarding "transportation fuel." Our economy is, Literally, built on "Cheap" transport. It Is essential to the way we do business.

What a lovely restful sleep I dreamed of Windrowed Alfalfa till yonder sun was three hours high.

My friend Emery who met his early demise on the rocks of the Clearwater driving in an Austin Healy to the whore house at Orofino got it right on the head at a high school class pick nick by a massive big crow flying over head accurate as a smart bomb Splat! a story that lives in fond memory by all the remaining h.s. alumni.

Come to think of it since Van Gogh's Crows are commonly thought of as a symbol of death if one shits on your head you might want to take some added precautions at least in the near term future and not go speeding in a Healy drinking on a winding river road.

oh Emery I did love ye his dad was a chemistry professor at the U of Idaho of the Mormon suasion Emery once brought a chicken in a sack into study hall and let it loose pissing old Mrs Gerke off royally he and I had a hell of a good time together he was a wonderful guy just a little wild my last post for the day going to CdA to help the dotter.

Saw Allen’s post from the previous thread and ran up the following response. Then thought better of posting it since the EB had moved to a new thread that was concerned with Obama and the deficit.

However, since Allen has decided to continue with the crudity, I’ll post it now.

”If you tell him he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, Quirk would probably fetch the Sunday paper and "lick his pecker" for your amusement.”

Ah, my nemesis returns.

And on this bright Sunday morning tries to degrade the level of conversation even further. Normally, I would ignore it as merely more unctuous mewling from the southland; however, this morning I was just getting into my horoscope for Leo and you have completely ruined the mood. I’ll likely not get back to it today.

”O, Mel, I generally try not to allow how I feel to govern my actions. On the whole, there is method to the madness.”

At last, a little Freudian recognition of the truth.

You are a troubled soul Allen and should seek help. The defensiveness, the overcompensation bespeak of a massive inferiority complex especially regarding all things Jewish and Israeli. You wallow in your victimhood. But your personal problems go beyond Israel and the Jews. Your constant return to the issue of the U.S.S. Liberty points out the basic insecurity that colors your life. You accuse me of using Wiki yet your argument, your one argument, on the subject was pulled directly from Wiki. You didn’t even try to disguise it. The projection (as if using Wiki is necessarily a bad thing or is less a functional tool than say Commentary or the Matzo Gazette) is telling. It’s merely a compensating device to help assuage your gall at losing the argument. Accusing me of being anti-Jewish, anti-semitic, anti-Israeli is merely ad hominem fluff thrown out as diversion to cover the fact that you lack the intellectual capacity to develop a cogent and logical argument. Godwin’s Law can be applied to most of your baiting.

Your constant whining, “Whoever, don’t talk to me anymore”; “Whoever, I wouldn’t blame you if you left this blog”; “Whoever, you would wet kiss a bigot if it garnered attention”; “Whoever, you’re the reason Wretchard set up his blog” are the wimperings of the kid who can’t cut it so he decides to take his ball and go home. The problem is you can’t seem to stay away.

Most of the time there are few subjects here that interest me to any great degree, anything PC and Top Secret America (apologies to Trish) being exceptions. If I seem intense at any particular time it is merely because of being involved in the argumentation process. Frankly, I could generally be satisfied taking either side of an argument. It is the arguing process that is fun for me. Therefore, I have trouble generating any real animosity on a personal basis for anyone on the blog.

It reminds me of that old joke about Job and God. It’s a long one and could be dragged out over a couple beers so I will abridge it as much as possible.

Job, a righteous man beloved of God, had it all, beautiful children, a good life, land, cattle.

But then one day, while his children are all gathered in one house, the roof crashes in and kills them all. Job is devastated. He rends his clothes and shouts out “Why me Lord, why me?” But he gets no answer.

A short time later, Job’s cattle are stolen and his land is devastated. Once again, Job shouts, “Why me Lord, why me?” Once again there is only silence.

Then the devil inflicts Job’s body with sores from head to foot. In agony Job shouts, “Why me Lord, why me?” Again, only silence.

Finally, friends come to Job and report that raiders have come and destroyed his remaining possessions and killed all his servants. Job travels to the top of a nearby mountain, holds his hands above his head and shouts “Why me Lord, why me?” Again there is only silence.

But this time as Job slowly turns to walk away, a great booming voice comes out of the heavens and says "Job".

Job is terrified, but he still has the temerity to ask, "Please Lord, why have I been afflicted so? Why me Lord, why me?"

There is a long silence before God finally says, “I don’t know Job, but there is just something about you that pisses me right off.”

A story that's getting overlooked because it doesn't suit the interests of either the petro-heads, or the eco-greenie, windmill-pushers is that there is only one car left with a chance of winning the $5 Million X-Prize for fuel efficiency.

And, it runs on E85.

Commenting on why they chose E85:

An electric car has to work extra to accelerate because of the added weight of batteries. All cars require less power to maintain highway speeds than to accelerate up to them, and this is especially true of electrics. An advantage of electrics is that the motor can be throttled back to cruise without losing efficiency.

A gasoline engine may accelerate more efficiently without the added weight of batteries, but when throttled back to cruise power it loses efficiency, because of internal friction and pumping losses.

Pumping losses led us to E85. Pumping losses come about at low load because the engine is trying to draw in a cylinder’s worth of air past a throttle that’s trying to stop it. Our solution for this inefficiency is to “throttle” the engine with exhaust gas recirculation. For practical purposes exhaust gas is inert, so if we send a cylinder full of exhaust gas and fresh air mix into the engine instead of a partial fill of fresh air only we can reduce power while also reducing pumping losses.

However, there is a limit to how much you can dilute the incoming fresh air with exhaust gas before the engine starts to misfire. E85 is significantly more tolerant of charge dilution than gasoline, allowing us to run the engine at close-to-peak efficiency at cruise power.

E85 has other attractive qualities. It (ethanol) runs cleaner than gasoline. It is renewable. As ethanol production moves from corn to cellulose-based sources ethanol becomes more energy efficient to produce and competes less with farmland.

"Please have some respect to those you are arguing with by not using mistranslations so easily corrected.."

You mean by checking in Wiki?

This wasn't a bible reading or a Sunday school class or the Jewish equivalent. It was a joke, merely a joke, and a very old one at that.

The fact that "HaSatan", the accuser, was later designated the devil in other contexts doesn't really impact on the point of the joke. As a matter of fact, you could pull out the offending sentence entirely and the joke would pretty much read the same.

However, to accommodate your objections, in the future before posting any jokes with a biblical theme I will have them proofread and fact checked with my biblical scholar, T.

Not sure what this one means Linear, or what are the alternatives. How do you read it?

"Citizens should not depend on financial assets as a repository of value and rely on fallible "expert" advice for their retirement: Economic life should be definancialised. We should learn not to use markets as warehouses of value."

Within Taleb's context it would seem that conventional repositories would become more stable and the rules easier to follow for those of us who've been led to slaughter recently. Myself, I can't figure out which way to jump, and so stand still. Like finding yourself 20 yards deep in a minefield.

THE US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be "far preferable" to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama's claim last week that all Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" to learn of Megrahi's release.

This is probably true for a lot of people and at least you've been frank about it.

I recall some ungodly hour perhaps up to a year ago when you had a bone to pick with something I wrote. I had no ready response and so shifted the subject to where I was on more or less uncontroversial ground. Which of course did not go unnoticed but at least it was the end of the debate.

Upon that end, you remarked that you'd simply been in the mood for an argument. And I was handy at the moment. The subject and point of view engaged could have been almost anything.

And this struck me as, well, wrong. To someone for whom arguing (whether alone in a letter to the editor or directly with others) has long been the most intense, exhausting, and often utterly desperate activity - the most intellectually passionate one - the notion of arguing for argument's sake seemed and still seems at times...way too blithe.

And to have a position or statement taken apart by someone who's doing it for fun?

Well, you can imagine.

Your response would be, I think, "Do a better job of it to begin with."

Well, yes.

Easier said than done, of course. All those things that matter to us individually, all those things we believe or take for granted or think we know inside and out, we'd like to be able to perfectly defend from all comers. On the spot. (Better yet never have them scrutinized.)

Wouldn't it be lovely.

Sometimes we're wrong on the immediate matter and need to dig a little deeper to that thing which is well and truly to be defended. That takes time and more care.

Goes without saying, there's plenty of hypocrisy in this. More than plenty.

"as long as I've been around here, I can't see that arguing has ever changed anyone's opinion about anything"

Then why do it except for the mental exercise.

Surely, taking these subjects too much to heart tends to raise the blood pressure. Just as assuredly, there are subjects worth the discussions, kids dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the erosion of rights in this country, 9 million people being out of work.

However, you also have to realize this is a blog. Most of us are too old to be changing our minds about much at this point. To think that one of your posts will ultimately result in world peace is a bit presumptious. The best you can hope for is as Trish stated "to stem the assininity" a little.

Frankly, I worry about Deuce exploding at some point over Obama.

From the Serenity Prayer:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can;and wisdom to know the difference."

"And this struck me as, well, wrong. To someone for whom arguing (whether alone in a letter to the editor or directly with others) has long been the most intense, exhausting, and often utterly desperate activity - the most intellectually passionate one - the notion of arguing for argument's sake seemed and still seems at times...way too blithe."

Sorry you feel that way. However, I'm actually doing you a favor. Not intentionally of course. As I've said I do it for my own enjoyment. However, if you’re serious about a subject the process should sharpen your thinking and your arguments.

When I was just starting out, I had a boss who forced me to write all his letters for him. The guy was a stickler and was meticulous about everything (spelling, grammar, syntax). The proofreading and re-write sessions were a real pain. But I owe the guy quite a lot. Eventually, writing became one of my strengths and was mentioned at performance reviews and promotions (not bragging, just trying to make a point).

When you make a sloppy or lazy or illogical argument, it not only makes you look bad it also degrades the position you are championing. We see this everyday from the hacks and the pundits and the jokers in D.C.

People aren't dumb. They can recognize a weak argument when they see it. They may not be equipped to come up with a logical counter argument themselves but they know something isn't right.

"When you make a sloppy or lazy or illogical argument, it not only makes you look bad it also degrades the position you are championing. We see this everyday from the hacks and the pundits and the jokers in D.C."

No shit?

Quirk, you're the only guy I know who can ruin a moment of honest introspection.

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.